Template:Did you know nominations/The Pistol: The Birth of a Legend


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 13:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The Pistol: The Birth of a Legend

 * ... that The Pistol: The Birth of a Legend shows how Press Maravich inspired his son Pete Maravich to achieve his dream of making basketball varsity team as an 8th-grader and more?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Propaganda, Excellent, Crimson Cord (3rd of 3 QPQs)

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 04:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article is new enough and long enough (just slightly over 1500 characters without headings and footnotes).  Article also appears to be within policy, including neutrality, use of inline citations, and lack of close paraphrasing/copyvio based on spot check. The hook is interesting enough and short enough (170 characters).  QPQ is complete. The hook fact is not a precise reflection of the facts asserted in the sources but is a fair summary of the story.  Looks ok to me. Cbl62 (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg What does "and more" mean? I don't see it cited in the article. Also, the bulk of the article is Plot and Criticism. The lead has the only "meat" on the page. Could you expand this with some kind of production notes or other details? Yoninah (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have production notes. All I could really do is expand the plot. Is that what you would like?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the plot.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not suggesting expanding the article with more fluff. Plot and reprinting critical reviews is considered the fluff of a film article. If you don't have any more "solid" information about the production, the actors, or even its impact on the main characters or on later documentaries, I guess there isn't much more you can do. Yoninah (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Per DYK Reviewing guide In addition to at least 1,500 characters of readable prose, the article must not be a stub. This requires a judgement call, since there is no mechanical stub definition (see the Croughton-London rule). If an article is, in fact, a stub, you should temporarily reject the nomination; if the article is not a stub, ensure that it is correctly marked as a non-stub, by removing any stub template(s) in the article, and changing any talk-page assessments to start-class or higher. — Maile (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg The article is not a stub and I have upgraded the ratings to "start" on the talk page. However, I don't think it qualifies for DYK because it is very short on actual content. According to the character count, 75% of the article is Plot and Criticism. Yoninah (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , OK. As far as my "Stub note", you took care of that. I've normally changed the Stubbie where I've seen it.  But I've noticed a lot are getting through and getting passed.  There have been a goodly number of stubs on this Nominations page as I just scrolled through.  I decided it's better for DYK as a whole to just leave the quote from the Reviewing Guide.  I have the feeling a lot of people don't even know about that, or a Stub just slipped by on human error. — Maile  (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a 1505 character or even a 1600 character article. This is a 2700 plus character article. It is far beyond what should be required. Plot counts as content for a movie article. In fact, it may be some of the most important content to many readers.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In the hope of saving this nom: @ TonyTheTiger. There is some solid information to be found in the external links already on the page. You could add a production notes section and add the following from the IMDb link: filming locations, company credits, tech specs, goofs (a good one, don't miss that out), soundtracks (important!). You could also use the same source to look at one of the main actors to see whether they are playing their same old character-type or an exciting different one. The Rotten tomatoes link mentions the tiny budget, so I had a quick glance at this Youtube clip of the film to see how the budget affected the film. It is immediately obvious that the judicious use of a very good soundtrack has (without spending much) lifted this film from the banal to the almost spiritual. No of course there is no place for opinion about banal and spiritual, but you can possibly tell us which soundtracks are used where, if you can identify any of the soundtracks. If you have the DVD and don't mind watching it through again, then if it has subtitles for the deaf it should indicate which music is played when. I have only glanced at two of your external links but I hope that will give you a start. --Storye book (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please be advised that neither IMDb.com nor YouTube is considered a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree about YouTube, and did not suggest that it should be cited. I just showed how I accessed the film. The DVD itself is a valid citation, though, i.e. its credits and subtitles. I had understood that the cast and tech details on IMDb were added by website staff, and that the public/blog type input that we could not use was the separate comment section underneath. The WP:RS link explains that official website staff input is OK.--Storye book (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this a DYK review or a GAC review? I have never sourced "filming locations, company credits, tech specs, goofs..., soundtracks" from IMDb and do not think most of these facts would be Kosher if sourced from IMDb. Me logging soundtrack from the DVD is WP:OR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I could discuss this further, but this is not the place for it. I am now going to have to support Yoninah's comment of 16 June above, re lack of content. --Storye book (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Concerns about length not addressed in a week. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added a production section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, TonyTheTiger. Readable prose count is now 2885 characters. I have read the above comments which say that the article was mostly plot and criticism, but what I see today is further information about the film in the header, Production notes and Cast sections. That adds up to a fair balance in such a new and short article. I accept that more background material may be added in future, and that some elaboration of the information in the header may in future be included in the text.--Storye book (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Original green tick review by Cbl62 still stands and I take it on trust, now that the article is long enough, and background and production material balances plot and criticism. All issues resolved. Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)